Article Tools

The Santa Barbara Unified School District will have to pay back the state $7.9 million if district administrators can’t convince the Department of Finance otherwise.

The 2011-2012 school year marked the first time the district was considered “basic aid,” meaning funds it received from property taxes disqualified it from receiving state money. When Redevelopment Agencies (RDAs) were dissolved in 2012, the district was classified as “basic aid” for the second year in a row. Now, it is required to give a percent back— also known as the Fair Share Reduction— or a sum of about $8 million, which is expected of all districts that are “basic aid” for two years in a row.

“We have bad luck that we’re just over the threshold. It’s a perfect storm that could temporarily hurt our funding, even though our funding is increasing overall,” Assemblymember Das Williams said. “If the school district has to pay back that $7.9 million in one year, that’s going to be a big interruption in prosperity and we should avoid that.” Williams explained a back-up option is to convince the Department of Finance to allow the district to pay the money back over several years. “[The dissolution of the RDAs] offsets what the state owes us…. if we get more, then they take it,” said Assistant Superintendent Meg Jette.

When the state proposed to dissolve (RDAs) in 2011 to divvy up the funds to taxing entities, many legislators — including Williams and State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson — defended axing the agencies in favor of funding public schools. RDAs were created decades ago to develop affordable housing and increase development in areas considered “blight.” Prior to their dissolution, these agencies were essentially self-financing because the projects they developed drove up property values, and then the agencies received the “increased” tax revenues to fund new projects and pay back bonds. Williams and Jackson advocated for gutting the RDAs a few years ago as the definition of “blight” became unreasonable.

The good news for the district is that funds from the Local Control Funding Formula are expected to increase per pupil funding each year until it is fully implemented by the 2020-2021 school year. Currently per pupil spending for the district is $7,091, but per pupil spending is expected — albeit only a projection — to increase to over $10,000 by 2020-2021. In simple terms, school districts receive money from a combination of local property taxes and state taxes based on its “revenue limit,” which is calculated from a complex formula based in part by how many students attend school each day.

Superintendent Dave Cash and Jette— along with Williams— will negotiate with the Department of Finance next week.

Comments

If it is illegal money, pay it back. What are you trying to teach your students to do otherwise?

SBUSD just got even more money after passing the latest parcel taxes. Tired of SBUSD always claiming money woes. Lesson one: budget within your resources and don't rely on the perpetual renewal of "temporary" parcel taxes.

Clip everyone 2% if you have to if revenues go down, but start budgeting within the amounts you actually receive rather than chronically dunning tax payers endlessly to cover your continual red ink budgeting.

You know the unions are all over you for for a share of any new money; so just as reasonable to demand they give up a share when revenues go down. Best lesson for everyone to learn when you choose to work for the government in a volatile economy.

Better yet, produce students who will actually grow this economy; not just take from it. That is the most direct reward/benefit public schools can offer.

Life is not fair; where did you read that is was? But you believe in Fair Share increases; it only follows there are Fair Share Reductions when revenues go down. Convince me otherwise.

You can educate students very well at the current $11,000 per head it costs this state per pupil. Look for reasons more than money, if you think schools are failing in their primary duty for the money already dedicated to this important task.

We fund public education well in this state and all we harvest are teacher union members who chronically whine whatever the amount it, is is never enough no matter how many times we are asked to raise taxes exclusively for them.

Prop 98 guarantees 50% of the general fund is dedicated to education in this state. That is a huge commitment. Thank you taxpayers of California should be the first words that come out of the education industry's mouths. To which I for one am happy to say you're welcome.

Go ahead and pay Montecito property taxes, and then let's talk about fair. They pay more, they get more. That is what is fair. The state guarantees a very good basic level of funding that all students get. And that is fair too.

We as a state can be proud of our commitment to public education. It is too bad the teachers unions destroyed this commitment to our young people turning those dollars into a lifetime employment guarantee instead of a reward for a job well done for our students. But that is another story.

And yes, some affluent areas (OMG NEWS FLASH- there are different economic strata in our country !!!) get more money; but so far no one can show their students get better educations just because they get more money.

I think quite a few said at the time that dissolving the RDA would not help the local SB schools; it would succeed in hurting local efforts to provide affordable housing, however. Both of those turn out to be true.

We can't afford any more affordable housing in the city of Santa Barbara.

17% of all housing units in this city now dedicated to low, or very low income individuals has sickened this city's economic base permanently.

You can thank RDA for controlling our city planning decisions, which should have been ours to make. Just like continuing to take federal HUD money sells out our city autonomy too, with every dollar they drip into our city coffers - 85% of which now goes to pay for city staff personnel costs and pension obligations.

What did we get with all this outside money and loss of control over our city planning process: (1) a permanent underclass residing in our city which now distorts city demographics and economics permanently, and (2) a city staff now addicted to unsustainable compensation and perks fed by outside dollars with no other city revenue streams now to make up the difference.

This is why the city and its elected officials can no longer do business as usual or turn the clock back this election to someone's false version of "happier days". Only shows they are out of touch and have not done their home work about city realities today.

It's hardly fair to ask Santa Barbara school district to pay this "fair share." Their district qualified for Basic Aid under a State formula for about two years, then no longer qualified. They never saw a benefit from just this short period of Basic Aid status. It's well known within the Basic Aid districts that the first two years are financially rough. Basic Aid becomes beneficial the longer you are in it. Goleta has paid its fair share reduction each year since the State started expecting that, but we definitely benefit from Basic Aid as we've had that financial status for about ten years now. That's even more true for Montecito.

I'm glad Santa Barbara school district leaders and Assemblymember Williams are asking the State to consider these unique circumstances. That's both fair and in the best interests of the children in Santa Barbara.